Categories
Policy News

This One’s (Not) for the Byrds

Hot Topics | March 5th, 2021

You may have seen the Byrd Rule mentioned in connection with the COVID-19 relief package working its way through Congress. The Byrd Rule has come into play since the relief package is tied to a budget resolution that is being legislated using reconciliation, a rule created by Congress in 1974 that allows the Senate to avert a filibuster and pass a budget resolution with a simple majority. Named for former Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va), the rule limits what can be included in reconciliation legislation in the Upper Chamber by outlining six criteria that can be used to identify “extraneous” provisions. The Senate Parliamentarian, an unelected official, ultimately has the power to decide what provisions are extraneous or not. Notably, the Senate Parliamentarian recently ruled that Democrats’ proposal to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour as part of the COVID-19 legislation did not pass the Byrd test.

Much more to follow on COVID-19 relief news in this week’s headlines:

COVID-19 relief legislation: what’s in and what’s out

  • In (as of 3/5):
    • Funds to subsidize health insurance for unemployed workers through COBRA. (Roll Call)
    • $400 per week in unemployment benefits for workers. (POLITICO)
    • A 29% increase in spending on Obamacare subsidies, which is projected to boost enrollment by about 15%. (The Washington Post)
    • $8.5 billion to help rural healthcare providers pay for the cost of COVID-19 care. (STAT)
  • Out (as of 3/5): Stimulus payments for Americans who earn more than $80,000 ($160,000 for couples). (POLITICOThe Hill)
  • TBD:
    • President Biden has urged Democrats to stay unified as the legislation from the House meanders through the Senate. Time will tell how unified the caucus remains as moderates continue to push for more targeted relief. (The Hill)
    • The provisions of the legislation are still subject to change as the bill works its way through the Senate.

An EUA hat trick

  • Following a thumbs up from an independent Advisory Committee, the FDA granted the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) on Saturday. (FDA) The EUA was quickly followed by a unanimous endorsement from a CDC vaccine advisory panel on Sunday. (The Washington Post)
    • Read more: How do the three vaccines (Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, Janssen) being administered under EUA compare? It’s complicated. Axios breaks down the differences, but here’s Dr. Anthony Fauci’s hot take: “We have three highly efficacious vaccines that are safe and efficacious. That’s the bottom line.” (The Hill)

You get a shot and you get a shot…

  • This week President Biden announced the United States would have enough COVID-19 vaccine stock to vaccinate all adults by the end of May (though getting shots into arms will take longer). The announcement came on the cusp of the FDA granting an EUA to the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, as well as an agreement that will see Merck & Co. produce the Janssen vaccine. (The HillSTATAxios)

Becerra’s bruising confirmation battle

  • President Biden’s Health and Human Services Secretary Nominee Xavier Becerra narrowly advanced out of his Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee on a deadlocked 14-14 vote. Becerra will now go before the full Senate for a confirmation vote, where he is expected to be confirmed by the Democratic majority. However, Senate Republicans are calling the deadlocked committee vote a victory, seeking to ratchet up the pressure on Democrats from swing states who are up for reelection in 2022. (POLITICOThe Hill)
    • Read more: If confirmed, Becerra said he would conduct a “thorough review” of executive mechanisms that could be used to lower drug prices. (The Hill)

If you enjoyed this excerpt from this week’s Policy News from Goodfuse, we invite you to email us at [email protected] to sign up the full weekly “insider only” newsletter featuring fun-to-read round-ups of Hot Topics, breaking news and some quirky facts to make your Fridays Goodfused.

Categories
Leading Thinking

The Quest for Truth

It’s now a year since the novel coronavirus first arrived in the United States. As we look back at 2020 and move further into 2021, we ask the question of whether the media has done its job getting accurate information to the American public during the worst public health crisis in modern history. As communications professionals, perhaps the more important question we need to ask ourselves is: did we do our job to be a resource they can trust or did we just add to the noise, creating potential more confusion and even distrust?

The only beat in 2020 was healthcare.

Mainstream media in the U.S. completely turned on its axis in February 2020. Regardless of their beat, every reporter essentially became a healthcare journalist. National and local reporters were assigned coronavirus stories without any foundational knowledge of science, medical information or how the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry operated. Not to mention, this was a novel virus and even trusted sources didn’t have all of the answers. However, there was really no room for error if you wanted to build trust. It was incumbent upon the press to get it right. The media were almost becoming a public health agency in their own right.

Journalists for the most part understood the weight of this responsibility. We saw some of them leaning on biotech and health trades to get up to speed fast. However, the sheer volume of information put news directors and editors in the position of having to choose speed over accuracy. The pressure to break COVID-19 related news first also at times sacrificed in-depth coverage that would have clarified a lot of misconceptions. Additionally, many news outlets found themselves relying on the same sources over and over again simply because there wasn’t time to explore other expert opinions. There were so many gaps in knowledge. While it is the job of the press and their expert sources to talk about what they know, rarely do they openly say what they don’t know simply due to the dynamic of reporting the facts as they are in the moment.

This brings us to the issue of trust.

Trust is critical when you’re communicating medical information. It has been argued and data shows that Americans started losing trust in the media before the pandemic even started. News has been highly editorialized and politically charged. Growing consumption of opinion-based journalism and increased reliance on social media for facts has led to increased confusion and distrust.

Americans craved reassurance and guidance from outlets they could trust during this difficult time which required consistent and accurate communication. There was a lot of “noise” which became confusing to the American public. As information about coronavirus evolved, many articles written earlier in the year were proven to be inaccurate. We forgive the press for this as the global community kept learning about this virus on the fly and information was constantly evolving. The volume of breaking news was relentless in 2020 and newsrooms were so overwhelmed that it became difficult to properly vet new sources and question existing ones. Additionally, we still wonder if the news media was going deep enough. Were reporters not asking the right questions or in some instances could it also be they just didn’t know the questions to ask?

Moving forward and focusing on facts.

Facts are critical when disseminating scientific information but what do you do in an America where everyone is questioning what the truth even is? As healthcare communications professionals, we also have to question the impact of politicizing medical information and how we navigate this landscape with a new President and a new Congress in 2021.

The good news is America has a growing appetite to now understand science which presents a golden opportunity for the healthcare industry. As a result of the speed of getting the coronavirus vaccine to market, people are going to start asking more questions about why cancer hasn’t been cured or why Parkinson’s research hasn’t progressed. COVID-19 has lit a spark for the exploration of science. Medical advances like the mRNA vaccines have a good shot at leading major medical breakthroughs in other disease categories. As healthcare communications professionals, we look forward to witnessing the new wave of innovation in biotechnology and paving the way for telling powerful stories in the next era of modern medicine. To do that successfully, we as healthcare PR pros have to acknowledge the fragility of trust and take on the same burden of responsibility as the news media to get it right when communicating scientific information at a time when American lives depend on it.

Jenifer Slaw is Senior Vice President of Media Relations at Goodfuse Communications

Categories
Leading Thinking

From Port Authority to pajamas: 3 tips for starting a PR career during COVID-19

Categories
In The News

MM+M Who Pulled You Through

MM+M

Categories
In The News

From Fearless To Facing Pressure: 2020 Disrupts Rebranding Trends

Forbes

Categories
Leading Thinking

Be vulnerable.

Categories
Leading Thinking

Keys to Successful Virtual Medical Meetings

Categories
Leading Thinking

Navigating an Unprecedented News Environment

Categories
Leading Thinking

Building PR Teams That Executives Will Trust and Adore

Categories
Leading Thinking

Olga Fleming’s secret sauce for employee engagement